Dr. Pete on Qualitative and Quantitative Research
2011-04-12
Dr. Pete
Dear Dr. Pete:
Every time you answer a question, it is in reference to quantitative methods. Have you got something against qualitative?
-Anon
Dear Anon:
I have absolutely nothing against qualitative research. Some of my best friends are quals...The fact that they can't count is not something I hold against them. They of course counter by saying that quant researchers can't listen—which is probably true as well.
One of the things I was taught was never to ask a qual "How many people in the group said that?" Apparently, they find it annoying. Whether that's because they can't count or because nobody actually said it, I can't really say. I was also taught not to try to use qual techniques in a quant study. I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have never written a question that started with, "Imagine this can of beans was a desert island..." (Although, I've seen others do it, not very successfully in my not very humble opinion.) The two disciplines, and at the moment they truly are two disciplines, attract very different people with very different skill sets. Each technique has its uses and its place in this great business we like to call market research.
-Dr. Pete
Dear Dr. Pete:
I've heard it said that qual and quant can never mix successfully. Do you share this view?
-John Doe
Dear John:
I've been involved in many qual/quant projects that have worked successfully, and plenty more that haven't. Just like in any partnership that works well, it is because of teamwork. Any successful team has to have a common goal and work together towards that goal. In the case where the common goal is consumer insight, each part of the team, qual and quant, is working together—illuminating, illustrating, clarifying and quantifying—until true insight is obtained.
When it all goes wrong, your client might well end up thinking they commissioned two entirely different research projects! Not only that—your qual and quant researchers will look like they work for two completely separate organizations. One thing I will say, in all the times qual/quant projects didn't work out, we never got repeat business...so go figure. Why did they fail? Mainly because each failed to value the other and to see things from their perspective. To my mind, this potential for great insight from the successful melding of qual and quant is part of what is making "research 2.0" or "community-based research" so appealing to clients. Clients aren't, and shouldn't really be, interested in the minutia of technique. They trust that we will get that right. What they need are answers and interpretation—insight that can be applied to their business problems. This is what they get, in spades, from community-based projects—committed, involved respondents discussing in-depth and at large their business issues—even framing the topics for discussion. When they are getting this rich insight, why would they care about our internal squabbles over whether it is a qual or quant project, or if it is indeed research at all? Remember, market research exists to answer businesses' needs for consumer insight, not the other way around!
Community-based research really blurs the line between qual and quant disciplines. Any researcher wanting to master the skills required to do it effectively is going to have to forget the old distinctions and learn the discipline they've previously ignored, whether qual or quant. Whatever happens with the new research techniques, they will be a better researcher for having learned to do both.
-Dr. Pete
